The Principles:

Howard Platzman, researcher, & Vince Palamara, author of "The Third Alternative: Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service & The JFK Murder"

PLATZMAN:

"Vince Palamara, a most painstaking researcher, was good enough to respond to
the questions I sent him via e-mail about his conclusions of Secret Service
complicity. His contributions in this area are unmatched -- but I have had
difficulty following the logic of the conclusions he has drawn. Some of the
discussion below refers to an article in the Fourth Decade [9/97] in which Vince
finally takes a position on the issue of the Secret Service's role, but I think
the gist of it comes through in the following exchange. Vince responded at
length to my questions..."

(Platzman continued):
"After all your painstaking research, you are entitled to reach some
conclusions, but I must say I found it confusing. I'm sure you're right about
the scope of the Secret Service's dereliction of duty, whether intentional or
not. And I tend to
agree that dereliction on such a massive scale seems unlikely to be
unintentional. But I'm having a hard time grasping who was doing what and why?"

1. You say [ASAIC Floyd]Boring et al. usurped the authority of their
superiors, but are you suggesting that their bosses were ordered
to stay away from Dallas by the master plotters, or were kept
away through some other subterfuge? If not, then how could
Boring et al. be in a position to usurp?

2. You say, the Secret Service knew but said nothing -- both before
and after the deed. But are you saying that the usurped, who chose
not to participate, nevertheless agreed to stay silent? Why? How
could the plotters have counted on their silence?

3. After the deed was done, you show that the conspirators were
rewarded while the first-stringers had their career paths
blocked. Wouldn't the plotters have feared that this kind of
treatment would give the bosses even more motivation to speak
out? Have you pressed this issue with them?

4. If they were told to stay away, does that mean the plotters
approached them first and asked them to cooperate, and they
refused? It seems unlikely to me that these first-stringers were
all asked to cooperate, all refused, and the plotters just hoped
they would remain silent -- so the most reasonable interpretation
is that the top guys were just summarily bypassed and people like
Boring, who could be counted on, were put in their place. But
that raises the question of how the plotters got this hold on the second-
stringers. I assume these were in-place second-stringers, not a
private army the plotters substituted for the real Secret Service
agents. Isn't is then a bit too coincidental that these guys, as
a group, would participate in the conspiracy while their bosses,
as a group, would not?

5. Wouldn't wholesale substitution of first-stringers by second-
stringers in Dallas, of all places, be a chancy proposition?
Granted, in hindsight, the plotters seem to have escaped the
consequences of all kinds of incompetence (even the backward
headsnap left in the doctored Z-film, if you believe the growing
mass of Z-film doubters), but, at the time, imagine suggesting to
your confederates: "Let's make sure all these guys from the
Secret Service who should be there, who everyone would expect to
be there, are not there. No one will ever notice their absence,
or, if noticed, no none will ever question it." At the time, this would
have seemed like a silly plan.

6. And a dangerous plan, since it points investigators in the
direction of those people, and only those people, who were in a
position to tell these bosses to remain in Washington. You say
you've fingered the Secret Service as complicit by their
inaction, but haven't you done more? You have also identified a
small range of direct links between Boring and the lead
conspirators, i.e., anyone who could order the first-stringers to
stay out of Dallas. Wouldn't you agree that, having granted
Boring's complicity/usurpation, the parties responsible for
putting Boring at the scene had to be the same parties
responsible for keeping his bosses away? If so, who would these
people be?

I'm having a hard time grasping who was
doing what and why?

PALAMARA:

I believe the matter is mainly a psychological one, rather than an
evidentiary one (one dealing with logic; the brain over the heart). For
example, John Armstrong's work on two Oswald's---and two Marguerites---is
widely viewed as terrific work ( I agree). However, many people STILL have a
hard time BELIEVING it (esp. because it all sounds ridiculous on its face,
particularly to the uninitiated). Likewise, Noel Twyman's "Bloody Treason"
and James Fetzer's "Assassination Science", while having a strong "fan" base
(myself inc.---I am in both books, too), have an equally strong dissenting
crowd, largely due to the notion that the Z-film has been tampered with in
some fashion. Still, it IS hard to BELIEVE that the Z-film has
been doctored, isn't it?

In regard to MY work, think about it: SOMEONE had to be responsible;
these agents have NAMES. Also, there had to be at least one REASON they
did---and did not---do certain things against protocal, common sense, and
training. among other reasons. Again, it is easy to say "the CIA did it" but
it's much harder saying, "o.k., WHO in the CIA 'did it' and, specifically,
why?"---psychological mindblock.

(Quoting Platzman Point 1:)

You say [ASAIC Floyd]Boring et al. usurped the authority of their
superiors, but are you suggesting that their bosses were ordered
to stay away from Dallas by the master plotters, or were kept
away through some other subterfuge? If not, then how could
Boring et al. be in a position to usurp?

PALAMARA:

Keep in mind, I---nor ANYONE else alive (or dead)---has ALL the answers.
That said, the situation that arose allowing the second and third stringers
into the mix and placing the higher-ups away from Texas (planning inc.) may
not have APPEARED so calculated and suspicious individually, but only as a
whole when looking at the big picture (as I have). Meaning, someone may have
suggested to SAIC Gerald A. Behn (for example), "hey, maybe NOW would be a
good time to finally take your first full vacation during your time
protecting the boss [JFK]"; "let's see what Roy [Kellerman] can do on his
own"; "Let's give Kilduff a chance to debut"; "Even though the transfer isn't
until Monday, why don't you take it easy, Stu, and let Rufus [Youngblood] get
a chance for an early 'indoctrination' into full-time protecting LBJ on his
own?"; "Win, Dave Grant will be joining you from the Florida trip to assist";
"Emory, you take charge of the Queen Mary [follow-up car] while the other two
shift leaders post elsewhere";etc

These hypothetical ruminations/ quotes aside, I believe that there was a
deliberate yet informal plan to keep the important agents/ personnel away
from the Texas trip and/ or Dallas, specifically (whether it was Behn in D.C.
or Godfrey stationed in Austin). Again, the means used to accomplish this
need not have been so formal/ written (an analogy: Clint Hill wrote that,
between 11/19 and 11/21/63, he was told by someone he twice wrote he could
not remember [but admitted to Arlen Specter it was ASAIC Boring] to not mount
the rear of JFK's limo, although there were no WRITTEN instructions about
this [see my book and my recent post re: Manchester]).

The facts are this:

a) SAIC Gerald A. Behn [JFK WHD]: took first FULL vacation in the almost
three years under JFK coinciding with the Texas trip. RESULT: ASAIC Roy H.
Kellerman. a third-stringer, made his first major trip on his own (Behn and /
or Boring, with or without Kellerman, always took charge of trips) and proved
VERY ineffective, to put it mildly. ASAIC [#2] Floyd M. Boring, although also
back in D.C. like Behn, was responsible for planning the Texas trip (duties/
advance assignments/ PRS/ etc.). Boring became an Inspector (promotion), Behn
became an "also-ran" with Rufus Youngblood[analogy: RFK was still the
Attorney General, but really in name only], LBJ's agent, soon to be THE SAIC,
replacing Behn, who ends up in "Special Investigations" (which Behn told me
he felt was "A DEMOTION"!!!). Kellerman becomes the new man's assistant and
is harshly criticized and asked to account for his actions, or lack thereof
[confirmed by June Kellerman; Roy testified to the WC and the HSCA and faced
a hostile press];

b) SAIC H. Stuart Knight [V.P. LBJ WHD]: although a transfer
to Headquarters (either a lateral move or a promotion of some sort,
unexplained) was to become effective Monday,11/25/63, Knight does not go to
Dallas. RESULT: ASAIC Rufus W. Youngblood goes in his place and, although
allegedly effective in regard to LYNDON JOHNSON, evokes much suspicion re:
actual actions/ radio transmissions/ usurping of power. Knight ends up going
to "Special Investigations", a non-protective duty [remember what Behn
thought of this duty...];

c) Press Secretary Pierre Salinger, a man extremely knowledgable about
motorcade security/ planning of trips first-hand (actively involved in all
the "nuts and bolts" with the advance team +)[ interviews with Bob Lilley and
Sam Kinney], MAY have missed only "TWO or three" trips during HIS time with
JFK...inc. the Texas trip! [ Salinger,"John F. Kennedy: Commander in Chief",
1997, p. 30] (Salinger was on a crowded cabinet plane bound for Japan along
with Rusk, DILLON, Freeman, and most of the MAJOR players, so to speak) Andy
Hatcher, #2 man, did not go, ostensibly because he was black (which never
stopped him before in any southern state or on TV, often seated right next to
Salinger. Also, a prominent member of the WHD on the Texas trip and a veteran
of MANY trips, like Hatcher, Robert R. Faison, was an African-American). This
left #3 man, Malcolm Kilduff, to make his first trip on his own [interview
with Sam Kinney]! Salinger and/ or Hatcher, with or without Kilduff, had
previously ALWAYS involved themselves with trip planning/ security do's and
don'ts (re: printing of motorcade routes, feasibilty of routes, security,
etc.). RESULT: Kilduff was "out of the loop" and inexperienced, left to fend
for himself in the aftermath of JFK's murder, declaring to the world the time
of death of the president. Kilduff was NOT involved at all in the security/
press plans to ANY significant extent, and we ALL know what happened...;

d) ATSAIC Emory P. Roberts: one of the three shift leaders (SAIC/ ASAIC
assistants) on the Texas trip. While Stewart G. Stout was at the Trade Mart
and Arthur L. Godfrey was in Austin [interviews/ correspondence with
Godfrey], Roberts took charge of THE most important shift of the three in
Dallas: the one physically protecting JFK during the motorcade (Roberts was
the commander of the SS follow-up car). RESULT: Roberts ordered Rybka back
from Love Filed and covered this up afterwards [all "innocent excuses"
aside---see the video] AND ordered the men not to move several seconds BEFORE
the fatal headshot (seperate from the recall of Ready; only Hill, assigned to
Jackie and not originally scheduled for Dallas, mounted the rear of the limo
at all, seemingly "disobeying" JFK's fraudelent "desires", as well as
disobeying Roberts and Boring). Emory would go on to usurp Kellerman's
authority at Parkland and then commandeer LBJ to Air Force One, not TWO
[O'Donnell denied that he gave the go- ahead to use AF1 over 2]. Roberts
became the Off-Records Sec. to LBJ [interview with Kinney], sharing duties
with another Roberts, Mrs. Juanita Roberts, Johnson's Chief Private Secretary
[possibly just a "coincidence"; by the way, Marie Fehmer, his other Secretary
of note on 11/22/63, became the FIRST woman officer of the CIA ("Today", NBC,
1/12/89!!!!]. Who were the first two agents to die after Dallas?
Stout and Roberts!;

e) David B. Grant: Joined/ usurped "principal" advance agent Winston G.
Lawson on 11/18/63, fresh from the Florida trip, the New York trip, and the
cancelled Chicago trip (ASAIC Floyd Boring led all these trips). Grant was Boring's
man in Dallas---things "changed" after his arrival on the 18th: motorcycles, from 3-6 on each side of the limouisne riding parallel down to four non-flanking units (again, based off JFK's fraudelent "desires"---Lawson had NOTHING to do with this
[interview with Lawson] and several agents I interviewed denied that JFK had
ANYTHING to do with this "uniquely insecure" arrangement (to quote the HSCA).
Also, like Clint Hill's "disobeying of an alleged presidential "decree", the
original, 18 motorcycle plan was STILL used in all prior Texas stops (inc.
Fort Worth on the morning of 11/22/63) EXCEPT in Dallas [one DPD officer even
said that this occured at the last minute..at Love Field, where Rybka was
called back by Roberts, among other things...)! Also, prior foreign and
domestic trips bear out that JFK did not mind many motorcycles FLANKING his
limo;
vehicle order: changed from the original order, inc. the press, press busses,
photographers (always rode in flatbed truck in front of motorcade and/ or
JFK's limo), Cecil Stoughton (in place of Robert Knudsen--rode in follow-up
car and/ or rear of limo from July 1963 until NOVEMBER 21, 1963; Powers took
his place in Dallas), and the military aide (Godfrey McHugh and/ or Ted
Clifton---McHugh even said this was unusual and that, on 11/22/63, the Secret
Service had asked him for the FIRST time not to ride in the limo, where he
sat between the agents in the front taking notes. Countless films/ photos
exist depicting these men in the limo or in very close proximity). DMN
photographer Tom Dillard said that this last minute change at Love Field took
them totally out of the picture- 'nuff said. RESULTS: crucial eye witnesses
and films/ photos rendered ineffective;
motorcade route: changed between 11/18 and 11/19/63 (despite all the
newspaper obfuscation/ conflicting accounts). There were alternate routes
(plural) [interviews with Kinney and Lawson] and Behn told me the route WAS
changed (but he claimed to have forgotten why...)! RESULT: slow speeds and
dangerous turns in an ideal ambush area with limo driver William R. Greer
slowing down the vehicle and looking back twice at JFK, disobeying
Kellerman's order to get out of there before the fatal shot arrived (would he
DARE disobey Behn or Boring?) [Bolden, Norris, and DNC advance man Marty
Underwood harshly criticized the choice of route to me---Underwood was
responsible for the Houston and Austin stops]...

f) Jack Puterbaugh: DNC advance man who rode in the pilot car along with an
UNPLANNED "guest", Lt. Col. George Whitmeyer, who taught Army Intelligence
[Lawson was a former CIC army intelligence officer]. as noted above,
Underwood was out of the loop in Houston, and their boss, #1 man Jerry Bruno,
went back to D.C. [ he ALSO harshly criticized the route/ security in his
book and to the HSCA]. Puterbaugh is often blamed for the Trade Mart decision
and the route change; his ACTUAL role is still not clear ;

g) Deputy Chief Paul J. Paterni: the only significant hands-on player fom
Chief James J. Rowley's office (inc. Rowley himself) in regard to the
AFTERMATH of the assassination. By the way, Paterni---and Inspector N.
Jackson Krill---was a former member of the CIA's predecessor, the OSS!

(Quoting Platzman Point 2:)

You say, the Secret Service knew but said nothing -- both before
and after the deed. But are you saying that the usurped, who chose
not to participate, nevertheless agreed to stay silent? Why? How
could the plotters have counted on their silence?

PALAMARA:

They knew and said nothing for several reasons: CYA (cover-your-ass)
mentality, actual involvement [remember, my chief suspects are Boring,
Roberts, and Greer], cover-up (towing the government line---remember, this
was 1963, NOT 1999), and survival (of themselves individually AND the SS as a
whole [again remembering the context of naivete and blind faith in government
institutions circa 1963; although the SS may have been threatened by the FBI
for domination after the assassination, there would be no realistic chance
that the public would have stood for this. Today, however...]. The usurped,
who chose or were "asked" not to participate, remained silent or covered-up
for similar reasons, inc. career-mindedness (pensions/ retirement/ family/
etc.) and the like. Again, it's all the CONTEXT of the times and the fact
that they were HAD; would the minority face the majority here? Silence could
be counted on for the above reasons PLUS bribery/ blackmail (remember,
the SS was paid a POULTRY sum and was a SMALL federal agency then; the CIA provided technical support/ help, inc. Theodore Shackley four days before Dallas).

(Quoting Platzman Point 3:)

After the deed was done, you show that the conspirators were
rewarded while the first-stringers had their career paths
blocked. Wouldn't the plotters have feared that this kind of
treatment would give the bosses even more motivation to speak
out? Have you pressed this issue with them?

PALAMARA:

Nothing is black and white here---remember, although Knight was
semingly demoted (with Behn, who said he WAS), he later became director of
the SS during the Watergate era [1973], replacing Rowley. Also, the plotters
could count on silence/ lack of retribution because of 1) what they did to
JFK in and of itself and 2) for the reasons stated above. In addition, it may
not have been as clear cut as "counting" on their silence---circa 1963, who
would believe the few who would even dare to say anything against the
majority in power and in a position to do something about their careers and/
or their very lives (inc. their familes)---like LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, etc. In
1998, post- Watergate, Irangate, Clinton scandals, sure---not then...No,
other than Abe Bolden (a firm believer in the conspiracy but a compromised
person)I never pressed this with them---I frankly didn't have the balls; sad
but true ( I also did not want to reveal my bias/ opinions too much.
Otherwise, the line of communication probably would have went dead).

(Quoting Platzman Point 4:)

If they were told to stay away, does that mean the plotters
approached them first and asked them to cooperate, and they
refused? It seems unlikely to me that these first-stringers were
all asked to cooperate, all refused, and the plotters just hoped
they would remain silent -- so the most reasonable interpretation
is that the top guys were just summarily bypassed and people like
Boring, who could be counted on, were put in their place. But
that raises the question of how the plotters got this hold on the second-
stringers. I assume these were in-place second-stringers, not a
private army the plotters substituted for the real Secret Service
agents. Isn't is then a bit too coincidental that these guys, as
a group, would participate in the conspiracy while their bosses,
as a group, would not?

PALAMARA:

Again, I don't believe everything was as deliberate and "formal" as you
hypothesize here (no offense). With the exception of those I have deep
suspicions of specifically (see above), the others were in a posiiton to be
influenced, innocently (by suggestion) or by orders ( real or threatening;
meaning, by official parties OR by the plotters, as you state BUT only in a
few possible instances). Although possible, I personally do not believe,
other than possibly via foreknowledge ala Hoover and LBJ, the first-stringers
WERE "approached" by the conspirators (who, by the way, I believe was a SMALL
element of the CIA and military, even EX-members of same, along with a few
ACTIVE SS agents, perhaps an EX-agent [see my book]). I believe the
first-stringers were, in all likelihood, bypassed for the FEW I hold
suspicions about; they were also in a position to INFLUENCE the other parties
whom they wanted to go to Texas and not go/ be involved, keeping in mind
another crucial point: they may also have known that, for example, the timing
would be perfect BECAUSE Behn would take his vacation, Salinger would go to
Japan, Knight would be transferred and stay in D.C. until it was official,
etc. Keep in mind: I do NOT believe the SS was the central part of the
conspiracy---I believe this other faction ([ex] CIA and [ex] miltary
"rogues"] masterminded the plot and brought certain influential SS agents
into it afterwards, not the other way around. Also, there were motives for SS
complicity/ inaction---anger at JFK for his behavior,, politically AND
sexually [see Seymour Hersh' interviews with McIntyre, etc. + my interview
with Bolden and Underwood (who believes the CIA, the FBI, and the Mafia knew
JFK was going to be killed on 11/22/63 and heard rumors in ADVANCE of
11/22/63 that JFK was going to be assasinated in Dallas. Where did Underwod
get cinfirmation of this info.? From non other than CIA Officer WIN SCOTT!)].
WILLING participants---this is what the conspirators were looking for...

(Quoting Platzman Point 5:)

Wouldn't wholesale substitution of first-stringers by second-
stringers in Dallas, of all places, be a chancy proposition?
Granted, in hindsight, the plotters seem to have escaped the
consequences of all kinds of incompetence (even the backward
headsnap left in the doctored Z-film, if you believe the growing
mass of Z-film doubters), but, at the time, imagine suggesting to
your confederates: "Let's make sure all these guys from the
Secret Service who should be there, who everyone would expect to
be there, are not there. No one will ever notice their absence,
or, if noticed, no none will ever question it." At the time, this would
have seemed like a silly plan.

PALAMARA:

Keep in mind, you are thinking in hindsight; actually, we all do this,
but, in this case, THAT is why you seem to view this proposition as
"chancey". Remember, to the public (esp. 1963 era), agents were agents; 99
percent of the people did not know their names or positions or who was better
or had more seniority/ power. And, as far as the agents themselves were
concerned, it was all a matter of compartmentalization: I doubt few knew all
the changes/ ramifications of these changes. For example, they all knew/
worked with Kilduff and Kellerman before; they were "qualified". It wasn't
like they brought in BRAND NEW agents/ personnel---now THAT would have raised some eyebrows (to the agents, not the public [today, yes, not then]). Silly
plan? Hardly...

(Quoting Platzman Point 6:)

And a dangerous plan, since it points investigators in the
direction of those people, and only those people, who were in a
position to tell these bosses to remain in Washington. You say
you've fingered the Secret Service as complicit by their
inaction, but haven't you done more? You have also identified a
small range of direct links between Boring and the lead
conspirators, i.e., anyone who could order the first-stringers to
stay out of Dallas. Wouldn't you agree that, having granted
Boring's complicity/usurpation, the parties responsible for
putting Boring at the scene had to be the same parties
responsible for keeping his bosses away? If so, who would these
people be?

PALAMARA:

The conspiracy was the penultimate DANGEROUS, risky plan, inc. all the
details/ planning (moot point)! Actually, the investigators were pointed AWAY
from the principal people---Boring, Grant, Roberts, and others were NOT
interviewed by the FBI, WC, HSCA, or even private investigators (until me, of
course, and only certain still-living agents). The absent first-stringers
took the majority (but not ALL) of the flack---from the press, the
government, and the researchers (the few who bothered to look). They ALL
dutifully went into CYA/ survival/ cover-up mode afterwards for the reasons
stated previously. Yes, I, ME, VINCE PALAMARA, have "identified a small range
of direct links between Boring and the lead conspirators", etc.---over 30
years later! Who else has? How many believe it ? How many know it
[approx. .00000000000001 percent of the population, maybe]? 'nuff said... This is not exactly common, acceptable
knowledge.

Also, while you know I put Boring where you state I do, I believe
the following specific people were involved (non-active SS related [note:
THIS list is informed speculation]):
1) Charles Cabell (and his brother, possibly);
2) Ex-SS agent Harvey Henderson;
3) J. Edgar Hoover;
4) Allen Dulles;
5) Hemming's Interpen group (certain members of it);
6) misc. [ex] CIA and [ex] military, possibly the aforementioned Whitmeyer,
as an example.

Vince Palamara

Platzman's final response in the debate:

"I got your response and I feel it is detailed, and that it supports your
thesis."

(Vince Palamara, author of "The Third Alternative-Survivor's Guilt: The
Secret Service and the JFK Murder" (1993/1997) and "JFK: The Medical
Evidence Reference" (1998); Vince Palamara on pages xvii and 138 of ARRB's Final Report)